Sentencing schemes for juveniles must allow for discretion by judges and juries. This rule applies regardless of the crime committed according to the majority opinion in Miller v. Alabama, authored by Justice Elena Kagan.

The 5-4 decision is the latest in a series of decision by the Court that have reformed sentencing laws related to juveniles.

After today's ruling, if the defendant was a minor at the time of the crime, states cannot mandate a life sentence without parole. The sentencing process must involve some discretion, even if the child is charged as an adult for the crime.

This decision doesn't rule out the possibility of life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a homicide crime such as murder or manslaughter.

Miller v. Alabama requires that if a minor is convicted of homicide, the judge or jury involved in sentencing has the ability to choose between life without parole and a lesser sentence.

The young men involved in this case were both 14 when they were convicted of homicide according to CBS. They were both sentenced to die in prison without the possibility of parole.

Life without parole may be an appropriate sentence for a minor given the specific facts of a homicide. What the Supreme Court now requires is that either judge or jury actively make that decision during sentencing rather than rely on a mandated sentence.

There are currently about 2300 people in the U.S. serving life sentences without parole who committed their crimes as juveniles, reported Arkansas News.